To be honest, I disagree completely.

Players are professionals. They break, or go to the limits of, whatever the rules [or interpretations] are, simply because they perceive there is an advantage to be gained from doing so. I have to say you have a different opinion of what constitutes 'very few' than I do as, in general, I see several [I've probably got a different interpretation of the word 'several' than you
You may say it doesn't matter whether the ball is played properly or not, but I say if it doesn't matter, then we may as well do it properly - it's funny how the little tots at half time seem to do it better than the pros...I wonder at what age is doing it correctly coached out of them.

Same with forward passes - they are coached to play to the line and clearly feel safe enough to think that, if it is a bit mistimed, they'll probably get away with it. Which both sides did, more often than is good for the game, last Friday at Odsal. Penalise each offence and they'll take more care, they're professionals, that's what they do. And, you won't have lots of penalties - tell the players and coaches what is expected, and how it is going to be policed, and you'll have lots of players doing it properly . everyone happy!

The thing that I really don't understand about the PTB is why we play to a different procedure than is specified in the laws. Which state that the ball shall be placed on the ground*

The problem only exists because officials ignore the flagrant breach ogf this simple and basic rule, and instead, allow the ball to be rolled backwards. The rules do not permit this, plain and simple. Propelling the ball behind you is not "placing" it.

We then are told that the refs have been told to interpret the PTB rule in a way that as long as the player has made "a genuine effort" to play the ball with the foot, let it go. And it is this that leads to the ridiculous spectacle of a player lifting a boot as he whangs the ball back to his teammate, making a laughable cursory waft at the ball or even no effort at al, yet play goes on, and his team gets the major advantage.

What should happen is, ball placed on ground as per rule. If the player then made his "genuine attempt", the ball wouldn't move.

The immediate and miraculous effect would be that suddenly all players would manage to play the ball with their foot.



* the rule actually says "place or drop" but the refs ignore the second part and if you drop the ball to the ground they automatically call it a knock-on

I have made my point previously but agree that as the RFL continue to change the rules each season in an effort to speed up the game (especially for Sky viewers), referees allowing the ridiculous throwing the ball to the receiver in the play the ball! Forward passes which result in tries when our friends on SKY often comment "that pass looked a little forward", the game is moving closer towards American Football.

Not sure if anyone’s watched much NRL this season but they have cleaned up their PTB and speeded up the game without it turning into a succession of dummy half scoots. It’s do-able.

The time taken wrestling and messing about is much lower and the game is better as a result. The PTB over here has become too important in my opinion and the tricks employed by players to gain an advantage there are detracting from the more aesthetically pleasing parts of the game.

They have some rules that we’ll definitely see over hear soon like penalising the third man in the tackle if he tackles at the knees or below, compulsory substituting concussed players and 7 tackles from 20m taps when the opposition kicked the ball dead.

Exactly. And any one of our teams playing the way they do would be penalised to death under Aus rules.



Exactly. In fact you can easily see, - if you look for it - the tactics that have spread like wildfire, and because everyone is doing it, some much better than others but everyone, we and the refs just let it go.

I am sick of seeing the tackled player make an extra 2 or 3 meters as he regains his feet. What happened to playing the ball on the mark? I am sick of seeing the player levering himself up with one hand, crouched, while whanging the ball under his rising foot to the acting half back who makes many yards scooting as the defence is not set, and the marker is helpless since as the AHB scots past him, the tackled player is 'accidentally' stumbling into collision with him.


Leaving aside the odd question of wtf the RFL and the ARL can't sit down each close season and decide a joint policy, which must be simultaneously the biggest embarrassment of governance in any international sport, and an enormous finger raised to northern hemisphere rugby league, I watch the NRL and the PTB there seems easy enough for the refs to police extremely consistently without all this performance. You don't really notice their PTB; you kind of know what to expect and you find yourself being able to instinctively tell when a penalty is going to be called.

It just looks so clean, all the more so if you then watch one of our games back to back.

Sadly I never get the chance, but when I used to the game always seemed far more clinical & clean, not necessarily more enjoyable. Obviously there is advantage in the defending team holding the attacker up as long as possible to enable the defence to set. If an attacker can exploit that & get a quick PTB then all credit to him. As long as both feet are on the ground I'm happy with it; I couldn't give a hoot if he still has a hand on the ground.

And that's your choice except that then he hasn't (obviously) "regained his feet" which inconveniently the rules do not allow. So it's not a question of interpretation, it is blatantly against the specific rules. I believe there already is a sport where the man with the ball doesn't even need to try to get up, he just has to release the ball and someone else can take over. Maybe we should try that?

My beef with these illegal PTBs is mainly that the rules also require the defence to retreat the 10, and if these quick but plainly illegal PTBs are allowed then frequently the defence hasn't retired and some players are taken out of the game by the illegal PTB, and in many other cases the defence is still on the back foot, each situation giving the attacking team an unfair and considerable advantage.

Exactly! A further point would be that [iif[/i a professional player made a GENUINE attempt to touch the ball with his foot he'd surely do it 99 times out of a hundred, or he wouldn't be fit to call a professional.

My real beef is with the laws of the game though; if there is a general wish to speed up the game by throwing the ball back between the legs and allowing forward passes, then the laws should reflect this common desire. You can't have a situation, as now, where the refs allow one thing and the laws, quite distinctly, say something quite different - it would make the game a joke and disgrace..

This.

And I would only add that, IF the top of the RFL's list was to some day beat the Aussies and be World Champs, then we are putting our players at an even greater disadvantage by instilling in them techniques that simply will not be tolerated on the international stage. Why doesn't the penny drop that the NRL is appreciably faster and cleaner than ours - yet with the PTB properly enforced?

There is no policy of tolerating forward passes though, you are making that up. It just looks far worse than the good old days when we would regularly beat the Aussies because we now allow flat passes.

The NRL is certainly more clinical and clean in comparison with SL. The NRL commentators have all said how much it has improved as a spectacle compared with last year. I didn't watch it last year but in comparison with SL now it's like a different world. NRL games are far more entertaining and as such I can't be ar5ed with watching any SL at all unless my obligation to have to watch the Bulls kicks in which is sadly, increasingly rare. The two games are like chalk and cheese.

Refs over there seem to call held quicker to stop deliberate holding up of players and there's more policing of the ruck. Obviously having two refs helps and it doesn't eradicate refs mistakes. It does make for a better game.

Time the RLIF, NRL, ARL, SL and RFL got together and adopted the Aussie interpretations en bloc. In the past I'd be reluctant to just follow what they do but the evidence points to them being streets ahead in how they interpret the game.

People rightly complain about wrestling technique & defence solely designed to slow down the PTB. All this is to the defending team's advantage. If an attacker can get to his feet & a quick PTB, with or without a hand on the deck, then all credit to him. It should be encouraged.

Agree with this , I've watched a fair number of NRL games this year and found that the officials police the game far better.

This may be due to the extra ref, but you hardly seem to hear anyone complaining about a decision made. The refereeing errors are far less than what you see in SL. I also like the way the Video Ref can be called upon during the game to help with the outcome of a decision.

They do spend a bit too much time on the video ref IMO but I agree.

Another noticable difference is the commentators. No endless disection of refereeing decisions and expert comment that you actually learn something from.

Amazing stuff.